Post by account_disabled on Mar 6, 2024 5:36:01 GMT
To oppose the current election procedure of the General Council of the Judiciary, the three right-wing parties present (political, judicial and media) invoke an alleged politicization of Justice as if an election of judicial members, attributed only to the judicial personnel themselves, were to depoliticize the election itself. If we talk about conservative and progressive associations, how is the election going to be if not totally politicized? But, in reality, in recent years, coinciding with the Governments of President Sánchez, we are witnessing the opposite phenomenon: there is no politicization of Justice, but rather the judicialization of politics. By judicialization of politics we mean the use of judicial procedures in order to obtain political returns, returns that, in principle, are only obtained through the democratic play of representative bodies or the mass media. In other words: to obtain a political victory over the adversary, some parties are resorting to judicial procedures (especially criminal, but not only) that try to delegitimize and even sink the opposing party or government. In Spain it is happening on the part of the right-wing and extreme right-wing opposition (especially the Popular Party and Vox) who seek to discredit the Government and its parties and place them within a political-judicial conflict.
We have seen it, for example, with the case of former Minister González Laya, who is wanted to be involved in the judicial hornet's nest of a pseudo-crime (the arrival in Spain of the President of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Australia Phone Number Republic, seriously ill), when it is an issue that is inserted in the political acts of the Government that, to make matters worse, does not even have a victim. We are seeing it with more cases when Senior Officials of the General Administration of the State are accused of pseudo-crimes that, with all certainty, will be revoked by a higher Court. It is about going to the media to identify a High Official, falsely accuse him and convey the idea that the Government is committing a crime. For this tortuous operation to be applied, two requirements are necessary, one subjective and the other objective-normative. The subjective requirement is the existence of a Judge or Magistrate who is willing to collaborate in the operation. There are, and there are even Magistrates or Judges with political responsibilities in the popular Governments who now seat Senior Officials with similar political responsibilities to those they had in the past. A principle of professional ethics should lead these Judges and Magistrates to refrain from instructing a summary of political content, but they are not going to do so because.
Precisely, the complainants (individuals and right-wing parties) wait for these Judges and Magistrates to agree. guard so that they can capture the complaint that, if it fell into the hands of an apolitical Judge or Magistrate, would be dismissed a limine. Even if it is one percent, there are Judges and Magistrates where political criteria influence when making decisions. The objective-normative element is the existence of popular action in our system. Popular action, that is, the possibility that people who are not victims of a crime can report it to the Courts, is a rarity in the Western world, but in Spain it is provided for in the Constitution, in its article 125. In application of This precept has been included in articles 19.1 and 20.3 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary, which have opened this procedure and then developed it in articles 101 and 270 of the Criminal Procedure Law. The legal regulation of popular action is naive, since the legislator, both of the Organic Law of the Judiciary and the Criminal Procedure Law, did not foresee the fraudulent use of popular action to carry out opposition politics through judicial means.
We have seen it, for example, with the case of former Minister González Laya, who is wanted to be involved in the judicial hornet's nest of a pseudo-crime (the arrival in Spain of the President of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Australia Phone Number Republic, seriously ill), when it is an issue that is inserted in the political acts of the Government that, to make matters worse, does not even have a victim. We are seeing it with more cases when Senior Officials of the General Administration of the State are accused of pseudo-crimes that, with all certainty, will be revoked by a higher Court. It is about going to the media to identify a High Official, falsely accuse him and convey the idea that the Government is committing a crime. For this tortuous operation to be applied, two requirements are necessary, one subjective and the other objective-normative. The subjective requirement is the existence of a Judge or Magistrate who is willing to collaborate in the operation. There are, and there are even Magistrates or Judges with political responsibilities in the popular Governments who now seat Senior Officials with similar political responsibilities to those they had in the past. A principle of professional ethics should lead these Judges and Magistrates to refrain from instructing a summary of political content, but they are not going to do so because.
Precisely, the complainants (individuals and right-wing parties) wait for these Judges and Magistrates to agree. guard so that they can capture the complaint that, if it fell into the hands of an apolitical Judge or Magistrate, would be dismissed a limine. Even if it is one percent, there are Judges and Magistrates where political criteria influence when making decisions. The objective-normative element is the existence of popular action in our system. Popular action, that is, the possibility that people who are not victims of a crime can report it to the Courts, is a rarity in the Western world, but in Spain it is provided for in the Constitution, in its article 125. In application of This precept has been included in articles 19.1 and 20.3 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary, which have opened this procedure and then developed it in articles 101 and 270 of the Criminal Procedure Law. The legal regulation of popular action is naive, since the legislator, both of the Organic Law of the Judiciary and the Criminal Procedure Law, did not foresee the fraudulent use of popular action to carry out opposition politics through judicial means.